A lack of role models

Even in a time of political correctness in which busy-bodies are continuously nudging people to act in certain ways the nannies deem moral, there are few role models for young people to learn from when it comes to integrity. It appears that even the do-gooders have their niches, with environmentalists who demand certain behaviors and actions out of loving concern for the earth, but then care very little for humans inhabiting the earth, or union leaders who righteously preach justice unless it applies to those with a lot of wealth, then justice is not so important, or the civil rights leaders fighting courageously against racism yet make slurs against others because of the color of their skin.

 The biggest disappointment regarding Barack Obama's historic election as the first black president is that he's missing an opportunity to teach impressionable young people of all colors about the value of integrity. Obama has sold his principles for power, if he ever had any, as he says whatever is necessary to play the political game like a common politician. Some will say -- "Well, what's wrong with Obama being a politician and playing the game -- why are you placing a higher standard of behavior in office on him just because he's black?" I'm not saying he has to behave differently than a white presdient, just that an opportunity has been lost, and it's disppointing.

The problem with a dearth of role models is widespread, and even in sports it's difficult to find a star with integrity -- maybe Albert Pujols and a few others, but most are arrogant and self-absorbed, just like popular entertainers who preach for causes then live like deviants and rascals. In the business world it's hard to find great men and women with integrity who will fight against special privileges of money and demand fair competition even if it hurts their position in the market -- oh, they will promote free markets, but then the backroom deals with politicians take precedence in their real business plans.

The wealthy and advantaged in society have no duty to be role models -- this is not what I'm saying. There is nothing more phony than someone trying to be a role model because they think their station in life demands it. Being a role model comes about without hype and posturing or false sense of duty -- it's a matter of honest men and women living a life of integrity and then others knowing -- it's not something one promotes in a marketing or re-election campaign.

I suppose the causes are mainly cultural, which begs the question -- what type of culture has America been developing? One that rewards manipulation, arrogance and double-dealing if you get you what you want? I'm sure there are many causes, with moral relativity being one, but it does appear that those in positions of influence are setting bad examples, but in ways of which the influential actors appear to be largely unaware anything's wrong. It's become acceptable to lie and cheat if you can point to a greater good the lying and cheating help to accomplish. It's mostly all rationalization for the lack of courage or will to maintain integrity, just like the political idea that principles are obstacles to compromise and progress. Yes, sometimes combining different ideas is necessary to find a solution, but in politics the compromises are commonly made out of ad hoc expediency because no one has any principles left to fight for. Principles are too much like a philosophy for the modern thinker, and we all know that a structured set of ideas/principles used to guide your actions is closeminded -- what about the nuances? How can we be sure what's right? No, it's best to not get too uptight about behavior as long as your intentions are good, or you can least make your intentions appear to be good.

The average person is not much better as witnessed by the current public dissatisfaction with government spending and over-reach, yet the majority of people polled say they don't want entitlements touched or reduced. As long as people can rationalize their behavior, they appear to be fine with contradictions and duplicity. Maybe this is all part of the decline that other nations have experienced -- the majority of people have it relatively good compared to others who are starving in the desert, or under the rule of a ruthless dictator who commands their behavior, so they become lazy physically, mentally and spiritually -- they take freedom and comfort for granted. I do believe we're becoming a lazy nation, and I believe it's going to put us all in serious bind down the road. It would be much better to choose integrity now, rather than have us forced to consider its value in a crisis.

Morning Joe 3/1/2011 -- compromise

One Morning Joe today there was nothing particularly interesting except an overall direction in which several of our major problems appear to be headed. The budget and spending cuts issue is now being framed in terms of compromise between long term promises to deal with entitlements in exchange for short-term deficits, so that avoiding cuts now will save the economic recovery. On the Obamacare issue, Obama has said states can come up with their own plans. And with the issue of collective bargaining, some are suggesting that unions keep collective bargaining rights but be prevented from funding campaigns of local officials.

If these compromises are made, we will once again witness the survival of the status quo. If immediate spending is not cut and redundancies squeezed out of government, the long term promised fixes in entitlements will fall apart and the debt will continue to grow. As for healthcare, Obama's "flexibility" simply means that individual states can develop their own plans if they are like the Obamacare plan, thus moving closer to a single payer government healthcare system. And if collective bargaining and the whole system of rules regarding public union bargaining are not changed, unions will find a way to elect friendly local officials to do their bidding. In other words, compromising will lead to maintaining the same statist direction in which we are headed.

One more thing -- a clip of Obama saying that it does no good to denigrate public workers brings up the question if it does any good to denigrate and vilify Scott Walker, Fox News and Republicans.

Working together to get things done

America for the most part is a can-do country, and this is why the centrist pragmatic message has appealed to many people. The Democrats are using the mid-term shellacking as an opportunity to frame their defeat as Americans wanting the two parties to work together to get things done.

This strategy might work, but many people are also beginning to believe that a principled approach might be better than a pragmatic approach. Sophisticated political thinkers know that compomise is a way to incrementally make progress with a political agenda, but when I hear not-so-sophisticated commentators beating the drum for compromise and working together pragmatically to get things done, I know they haven't thought very deeply about statism or free market principles or limited government -- they're merely being practical and assuming that our political leaders can come up with good solutions if they just quit arguing and work together to make things happen.

We're approaching a showdown between two very different ideas -- one is the statist idea that the right, intelligent technocrats can manage the economy to steady growth while being fair and sensitive to the needy at the same time -- the other idea is that we as a society in a free market, protected by a limited government, can solve our own problems and take care of the needy as well. The centrist position is being revealed as an attempt by both parties to maintain the status quo in which the two parties have been satisfied alternating power.

This centrist position of a mixed economy has failed, and we now need to decide if we're going to turn economic management completely over to government technocats, or if we're going to take personal responsibility in the free market. The old answer that both are possible no longer has any credibility. 

No, he's a progressive

http://reason.com/archives/2010/12/13/left-and-right-fooled-by-obama

Steve Chapman can't be this ignorant, so he must be attemping to obscure labels like so many are now in to -- it's all the rage. All of a sudden, there's no such thing as progressive. Why, Obama is not even a liberal, really -- he's more like a centrist combination of all that's good and reasonable.

Obama compromised because he was forced to compromise. Obama didn't push for single payer in healthcare because, as he's said, this is a long run game. Chapman is no "useful idiot" -- he's part of current strategy to confuse labels and avoid clarity - no bright lines, so that Obama can appear pragmatic, moderate, rational, the "only adult in the room".

It's good that Reason online presents diverse viewpoints, but they ought to at least present honest viewpoints -- this is opportunistic propaganda. Obama simply understands that he can't get the progressive agenda through in 2 or 3 years -- it's a long run game, baby.

Republican moderates hooked their wagon to a falling star

Moderates like David Frum and David Brooks thought they saw a coming transformation of America in 2008, so they dreamed of a Republican Party made up of moderates who could compete for political power in the future. The moderates believed, rightly, that social conservatism was no longer relevant in the political world, that candidates running for office on a platform of establishing moral dominance over a society quickly losing its way in sin and permissiveness would be out of touch with the reality of a society which is actually socially liberal, or, at least, a society that doesn't want morals pushed on them by government. The moderates had other reasons they believed the Republican Party was out of touch: the relationship with Big Business -- the old guard of Country Club Republicans blocking young blood, gay Republicans, women, minorities from full participation -- the image that Republicans ignore the plight of the poor -- the association of Republicans with war and unquestioning patriotism and American exceptionalism which has caused conflicts in the global community -- the fact that Republicans have been viewed as anti-diversity and hostile toward multi-culturalism -- so on and so forth with many legitimate concerns. But, the main problem Republican moderates wanted to solve was the influnce social conservatives have had over the direction of the Party -- moderates wanted to marginalize the social conservatives and all their spokespeople like Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levine, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, and Glenn Beck, although they haven't quite figured out how to take Beck, so they just call him a crazy hate-monger.

The moderates soon had another problem -- the Tea Party -- but to the moderates, this was just an outgrowth of social conservativsm, a reactionary movement caused by a black president, changing times, and a fear of diversity and new ideas of governance. Yes, the moderates said, some progressive policies go too far, but we need major changes if we are to deal with out of control healthcare costs, global warming and our dependence on oil, the problem of Wall Street gambling us to the brink of financial collapse -- so Republicans had better stop complaining about "socialists" and birth certificates and bleeding heart liberals and join the government efforts in compromise in order to create a better, more sustainable society which is interdependent with the rest of the world. The moderates warned that Republicans can't afford to sit on the sidelines and just say no. This strategy, the moderates warned, will relegate the Republican Party to minority status for decades, and allow the worst of progressivism to come about. Centrists urged Republican participation in molding the legislation so at least the extreme elements were moderated -- what we would get, hopefully, would be the best of both sides as America is transformed to meet 21st century challenges. Yes, the moderates said, we agree that government has limits, but these are different times, and the emergencies facing our nation can't be ignored or put on hold as partisanship creates obstruction which will be blamed on Republicans and make them look backwards and reactionary, small-minded, clinging to an idealized past of a Christian America that has no relevance in the modern, complicated, cosmopolitan present.

However, the concerns of the moderates regarding social conservatism never quite materialized, and they misread the resistance to progressivism. Although social conservatives are involved in the obstruction of the progressive agenda, the main thrust was a desire to limit government, cut spending and bring about the creation of a free market. The rising stars in the Republican Party have not been moderates, but more libertarian-minded Republicans like Rand Paul and Marco Rubio. A large faction of the Tea Party has requested that the movement concentrate on economic matters, not social issues. In the meanwhile we've watched the EU struggle to bail-out member states teetering on collapse because of long term, welfare-state, progressive policies, just like the policies that progressives in America are pushing to implement, and moderates are calling to compromise with. The moderates have been caught between progressive big-spending, social engineering and the movement to limit government, cut spending and implement a free market. But these types of clear distinctions now bother moderates, and Frum is building a No Label movement. This is little more than a desparate act to avoid clarity.

The results of the midterm elections, and Obama's recent compromise on the extension of Bush's tax cuts, speak loudly to a change in direction and the failure of the moderate plan to work hand in hand with the progressives to transform America, relying on the calm and reasonable center. This doesn't mean the Republican Party is on the rise and that there will simply be a switchover in power like we've seen for decades - it means that progressives, liberals, moderates and Big Government Republicans have all misread the American public. We are entering a time in which the pressure will be to disempower the State and liberate market forces. The public is pushing for personal soveriegnty and economic growth -- people are tired of government meddling -- tired of the politically connected becoming richer and more powerful off the backs of workers and producers -- tired of Washington DC political animals telling them what they should think and how they should live their lives -- they are tired of government wasting their money, then finding ever more clever ways to tax them. If any group is making itself irrelevant, it's the Republican moderates. I suggest they worry less about strategy, spin and sophisticated, Machiavellian strategy and more about adopting the principles they've denigrated the last two years.